Why we need more "no skill" fighters in MMA

Below, my interpretation of the general consensus of most who frequent the pages of Bullshido:

The advent and development of mixed martial arts has solidified a set of techniques and training methods to yield the most effective fighters. They threw out Karate and Kung Fu and brought in ring styles such as kickboxing for striking, and made grapplers take up striking and vice versa. The fact this happened (after a process of simply pitting fighter against fighter in full contact bouts and seeing what styles would consistently perform or underperform (I wasn't present at the time, but this is my understanding)), appears for the most part to translate into what style of hand to hand combat is the best for anybody to defend themselves in a street self defence situation. In essence, just about all of what is used effectively by MMA athletes could be used for street self defence. So logically, if you want to learn the best self defence, take up MMA (arguably with some exposure to RBSDs as well for situations such as multiple attackers and weapons).

I do not disagree with the above, BUT:

This can lead to practitoners of the traditional martial arts rejecting everything they have trained in where there is no sharing of technique or training method with MMA or closely related ring based styles, and as is often the case, there is little overlap. However this is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as the primary aim of most practitioners of the traditional martial arts is to be effective at street self defence against an untrained attacker rather than a professional fighter. I'm not sure if an argument can be made for Aikido or Taekwon Do, but somebody well trained in a decent martial art such as Wing Chun is quite well placed to give a street attacker with negligeable martial arts, combat sports or street fighting experience a trip to hospital (even though this same practitioner may not have the same level of success against an MMA fighter, even on the street).

This leads to a dilemma that makes using MMA to gauge the effectivenss of a fighting system a little trickier than first anticipated. A technique can only work against someone of lower skill (ALL else being equal) and the element of surprise (ie, not expecting a fight to start) not being a factor to contend with. Any practitioner of a striking based style who spars will experience the frustration at some point or another that "using footwork to move to the blindside and pummel them with strikes there" just can't be pulled off so well, as our sparring partner trains the same style and is expecting this tactic. All he does is rotate his body to again face you and the advantage you were trying so hard to get is now lost, the end result being a waste of energy (and hopefully some learning). So does this mean the technique of using the blindside doesn't work? No, it means it won't work on someone who understands and regularly trains the technique (or just has really fast hands). All the sparring proved was one practitioners skill over another at anticipating and counter-attacking.
Another thread talks about the basic escape from mount being used rarely in MMA yet still is taught in BJJ class. In a situation where there's a solid mount and ground and pound from a professional fighter, this escape may indeed be not always practicable. However, the same concept is at work - it is about the relative skill of the fighters. A poorly executed mount with ineffective ground and pound by an inexperienced opponent would not stop a top fighter from using an escape, as taught in BJJ 101.

So regardless of whether MMA is effective or not as a self defence system, MMA in the octagon does not, for the most part, gauge how effective the martial arts are against a "no skill" fighter. Which brings me to the title of this post. We've already been through the "style vs style" years of the UFC which lead to MMA today. What there needs to be is essentially "style vs no style", and the closest thing I can think of is any bout including David "Tank" Abbott, or "Kimbo" Slice (this is not to say that Abbott and Slice aren't effective fighters).

To get some much needed objectivity on the matter, bring back Kung fu and Karate, but not to pit them against BJJ or MMA (been there done that). Pit Kung Fu versus a "no skill" fighter (skill here referring to "martial arts" skill specifically), then pit MMA versus a "no skill" fighter. Even non fighters who will just go in there to have a go, and willing to take punishment. If MMA defeats the "no skill" fighters more often than do the TMA, this will be a final vindication of the proponents of MMA over the TMA for not only octagon supremacy but supremacy in street self defence. If TMA fighters experience some measure of success against these "no skill" fighters, this will undoubtedly come as a surprise to many, but will provide die hard practitioners of the TMA some hope that their years of dedication and effort were not completely in vain.

I think that you have misinterpreted the consensus view of Bullshido members. I'd say the consensus is that it is realistic training, and the lessons learned from that training, that make a fighter effective. What the evidence has shown is not that there are just five or so martial arts that are useful in MMA, but that a broad range of martial arts can be effective under that ruleset if they are trained properly.

The martial arts that are generally held in disdain on this forum are those that tend to not spar at all, or that only spar within the style, or whose practitioners tend to look down on crosstraining. It is not a coincidence that the martial arts generally considered "core" for MMA -- BJJ, MT, boxing, and wrestling -- are martial arts that have always had resistant sparring and competition as core aspects of their training.

What we know now is that almost any martial art can work in combat sports if it is trained correctly.

As for the rest of your post, I suspect that sparring with people from other styles, and sparring with beginners in your style, solves the problem you describe. I don't think that having highly trained fighters beat up untrained schleps is going to prove anything.

You're probably going to get flamed for the above, but I understand your point. To a degree. Still, I think there is an important point you're missing: Much of the advantage combat sports and competitive martial arts have over other systems flows from the assumption that your opponent is a force to be respected. Thai boxers do not make assumptions about avoiding every strike, but rather train to take it if they have to, and come back firing. Judoka do not assume that their opponent is easily unbalanced, or incapable of throwing them, but work on being able to unbalance and counter even seasoned players.

It does not pay to assume you're opponent is a chump.

I would not expect the average Iowan dude to be a grappling n00b. I would not expect the average dude from Belfast to be a chump with his hands.

Crappy martial arts may work on accountants, but good ones will work better, and won't fail when the guy is revealed to be a state champ in Freestyle wrestling who likes bean counting.

Get it?

P.S. Get the early UFC's and take a look at who could, and who could not handle Tank Abbott.

If a tactic or technique works against a skilled, resisting opponent, then a non-skilled opponent will be royally fucked by it. Why settle for a technique that only works against someone unskilled? It's like going into a battle with a sword instead of a rifle.

As for multiple opponents and weapons, here's how to deal with that:

1. Eat a lot of liquorice and cashews. And I mean a lot.

2. Don't wear underwear.

3. Wear those male stripper pants with the velcro that can be torn off easily.

4. When someone attacks, tear the pants off and immediately start running. The mixture of fear, liquorice and cashews will make you diarrhoea massively. Your attackers will slip on the diarrhoea and be disgusted, thereby stopping their chase.

5. You can then go home happy in the knowledge that your dignity is still intact.

Untrained fighters come into the gym all the time. And you get to spar them all the time. This is the time when I work on my new ideas and practice hard to setup techniques. Once I perfect them on the noobs, I get better at using them on guys with more developed skill.

"a martial art that has no rules is nothing but violence" - Kenji Tomiki

I get it, but I don’t agree. Overall I see MMA as a good gauge for a martial art but there are little things that aren’t accurate for some self-defense situations. Like how mma fights take place in a cage or ring where escaping isn’t an option and it doesn’t take into account “dirty fighting”.
Personally I think it’s dangerous to train in an art with the expectation that your opponent is a flail-punching moron. There’s a saying that goes something like “Train expecting the worse, fight expecting the best”. This way if you do encounter someone with skill you’ll be ready but you find someone with no skill you don’t end up getting arrested for beating the crap out of them.

As War Wheel brought up - there are a LOT of people with at least some training in boxing, wrestling, judo, etc. In the US Midwest, there's a scarily good chance that the guy you're getting into a scuffle with knows how to blast a power double so hard that your skull will fracture. In Hawaii Judo is crazy popular. Boxing is very popular in large cities.

You can't rely on your attacker being untrained. If he's bothering to attack you without a club or knife or gun, there might be a reason he feels he doesn't need one.

Just to throw this into the mix -- I have heard anecdotes to the effect that a completely unskilled fighter who spazzes out in an altercation and starts flailing about with random slaps and kicks can be surprisingly dangerous.

Kind of like a '50s sitcom where the guy's wife wins at poker after asking "is three ladies good?"

Anyway the "opponent panics and starts windmilling around whacking people in the head and shins" scenario seems plausible.

I get it, but I don’t agree. Overall I see MMA as a good gauge for a martial art but there are little things that aren’t accurate for some self-defense situations. Like how mma fights take place in a cage or ring where escaping isn’t an option and it doesn’t take into account “dirty fighting”.
Personally I think it’s dangerous to train in an art with the expectation that your opponent is a flail-punching moron. There’s a saying that goes something like “Train expecting the worse, fight expecting the best”. This way if you do encounter someone with skill you’ll be ready but you find someone with no skill you don’t end up getting arrested for beating the crap out of them.

If anything, MMA guys would know how to employ such techniques more effectively than non-sparring martial artists. How hard is it to adjust your knee to come up not in the sternum, but in the gonads? How hard would it be for a guy in full mount to, instead of dropping hammer fists, try and gouge out his opponent's eyes?

Are you also assuming that an MMA practitioner doesn't know how to flee because they train in a cage?

Good god. If this were a courtroom, I'd object "asked and answered a billion times" to your argument.